Trump proposals would be challenging, but isn’t saving America worth it?
The 2024 presidential election is a year away, scheduled for November 5, 2024.
Who will win?
Could former President Donald Trump win? Could he pull a Grover Cleveland and return to the presidency after being out of office?
A lot could happen between now and Election Day.
CBS recently reported that candidate Trump has proposed a “radical shift” in U.S. immigration policy.
The article, written by CBS immigration reporter Camilo Montoya-Galvez, is entitled, “Trump eyes radical immigration shift if elected in 2024, promising mass deportations and ideological screenings.”
Here’s how the article begins:
“Former President Donald Trump has outlined a radical shift in U.S. immigration policy if he’s elected president again in 2024, vowing to implement a slew of unprecedented measures targeting both legal and unauthorized immigrants, including a massive deportation blitz.”
Sounds great.
Here are some details:
BORDER SECURITY: “[Trump] has pledged to build miles of more border wall and impose dramatic limits on asylum, including by reviving a program his administration used to require migrants to await their asylum hearings in Mexico.”
After four years of the Biden Border Rush, this is the bare minimum that must be done.
ENDING THE ANCHOR BABY LOOPHOLE: “[Trump] has vowed to end birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants living in the country unlawfully…”
A hypothetical Trump administration would need to begin this project as soon as possible. Expect a massive fight over this issue which may go all the way to the Supreme Court. But our policy granting automatic birthright citizenship for babies born to illegal aliens is simply insane and must be ended.
MASS DEPORTATIONS: “Trump has promised to carry out the ‘largest deportation operation’ in U.S. history, modeled after the Eisenhower administration’s infamous ‘Operation Wetback’ in 1954…”
“To facilitate the mass deportations, Trump has said he will give the National Guard and state officials the authority to arrest and deport immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, a move that would challenge long-standing legal limits on the military engaging in domestic law enforcement.”
I would suggest that woke military officers who can’t stomach participating could be transferred to military attache duty in Outer Mongolia, or somewhere else far from our borders.
IDEOLOGICAL VETTING OF IMMIGRANTS: “[Trump] has vowed to…deny entry to legal immigrants based on their ideological beliefs.”
This could be difficult, but as a nation we have every right to decide who is and who is not eligible to immigrate to our country.
I remember when I joined the U.S. military some decades ago, the application form asked several such pointed questions.
It asked if the applicant was or was not a homosexual (how quaint that now seems) and it asked about the applicant’s potential membership in radical groups (such as Nazis or Communists) and organizations aspiring to overthrow the government.
Of course, applicants can lie on applications. But at least you have it on record and can deal with it.
An even better proposal would be to just shut down legal immigration for several decades, at least.
But if we’re going to take in immigrants, we have every right to be selective about them.
The article quotes Angela Kelley, who calls the Trump proposals “extreme.” She says they’d “terrorize” immigrants.
Who’s Angela Kelley? She’s a “chief adviser at the American Immigration Lawyers Association.”
Well, what would you expect someone from that organization to say?
To its credit, the article quotes a dissenting voice: “But Chad Wolf, who led the Department of Homeland Security during Trump’s final year in office, said officials who ignore the record levels of unlawful crossings along the southern border over the past two years are the ones with the ‘extreme’ position.”
Well said, Mr. Wolf!
In discussing these Trump proposals, the article says, “While they would mark a stark departure from current policy (LOL, that’s an understatement), many of Trump’s immigration pledges would face formidable legal and operational challenges, testing the limits of presidential authority and government resources.”
Well, yeah, it would be a challenge, wouldn’t it?
But isn’t saving America worth it?
More hints of Directed Energy Weapons in Maui
